Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ."
Annals 15.44.
Not mentioned until many centuries later, even by Christians who 1) had read Tacitus, and 2) were collecting Martyr stories such as this.
The earliest source also says Chrestians, not Christians, and Greek grammar means you can not get Chrestians from ChristOS.
And you're here to edumucate all us ignorant rubes. Way to be, Harry.
Call it what it is...it's religious bigotry. We see right through you.
No, I am here to educate anyone who is interested in looking at ALL the evidence.
You can dishonestly call it religious bigotry if you want if it means you can avoid actually even attempting to refute anything I see. You see nothing but your own fear.
Shirina, you are applying a modern literate society's standards and expectations to an era that is not remotely similar. The many ancient local writings ARE represented in those accepted and rejected as the Bible, the Apocrypha, and the various heresies and gnostic writings that were completely rejected. The only respectable historians were concerned primarily with Rome and things that materially affected the Roman Empire, not some remote backwater issues of no significance.
All the above refuted by first and second century AD historians.
Nice try, arctic, but Tacitus is second century roughly about 135 CE when he wrote this. Second, historians are not 100% positive he wrote this passage and third, he doesn't mention Jesus by name--just Chrest or Christ and as any historians will tell you there were dozens Messiah's running around Israel during the 1st century stirring up trouble for the Romans and getting themselves crucified. Look at Simon bar Kokhba.
Tacitus was dead by no later than the year 130. It's not physically possible he wrote that in the year 135. He was born in the first century. His work used official Roman sources from the first century (which are obviously now lost to us). I don't disagree there were many self-proclaimed messiahs but he is clearly describing the one the Christians of Nero's time and his own time were following.
Which historians specifically are you referencing here who doubt the authenticity of this passage? Mainstream historians generally accept the authenticity of this passage. It's not a positive spin on Christians by any stretch though he does suggest clearly Nero was scapegoating them for the burning of Rome. Whether you like it or not most historians have accepted a person named Jesus existed at that time and was crucified and his death led to the creation of a major religion in the following centuries. The issue of a belief in the miracles, etc., claimed is separate from the historical existence of Jesus as a person.
One thing people don't realize is that Jesus in his actual historical setting started out as an obscure mystical teacher from Galilee. In his day would-be messiahs, and people claiming to be miracle workers came a dime a dozen. As you would know if you read up on the history of that period. Barabbas who was freed in his place was one such person. His name actually means "son of the father" in Aramaic. For most of his ministry Jesus remained in and around Galilee which was pretty much a culturally marginal province in the the northernmost district of the Holy Land. Jesus only visited Jerusalem twice, and the last time only for a week. It took many years after his crucifixion for his following to really take off.
The first mentions of Jesus say he was a divine being, with Paul and Revelations saying he was an angel. If you read up on history, you would note that Barabbas, son of the father, is a literal invention to mirror Jesus.
And according to the NT, Jesus was very well known far and wide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior6
Nevertheless there is passage where Josephus mentions the stoning of "James, the bother of Jesus" which many argue is legit.
The very rare subject object reversal and the very strange way of talking about this Jesus tells us this passage is a later addition, probably from a note on the side of the text.
No one quotes this passage in the second and third century AD, so this probably occurred sometime during this period.
For what its worth, we know that Paul was a historical person and in his writings he admits that he did not see eye to with early leaders of the church who he met in Jerusalem, namely Peter and James the brother of the Lord. There are many others who attest to the existence of the apostles such as Peter, Thomas and John etc. While that doesn't absolutely prove Jesus existed, it brings us much closer to the probability that he did.
Except Paul says the apostles saw Jesus as he did. In a vision. And Paul says Jesus was an angel. Which brings us closer to Jesus being a myth turned man.
Not only is the brother of the lord passage ambiguous, we do not even know who this Lord is, the Jewish god or Jesus.
Not mentioned until many centuries later, even by Christians who 1) had read Tacitus, and 2) were collecting Martyr stories such as this.
The earliest source also says Chrestians, not Christians, and Greek grammar means you can not get Chrestians from ChristOS.
So probably a later forgery.
There were no printing presses in that time period. Manuscripts were copied by hand over many centuries to preserve these works and mistakes were frequently made in doing so regarding spelling, etc.
I'm sorry. Just not believable. I doubt very much these folks are out posting on forums for other topics with such hatred. They have a beef with religion and they're on a mission. I'm sorry for that. I really am.
Nice try, arctic, but Tacitus is second century roughly about 135 CE when he wrote this.
Tacitus died 120 AD. Annals was probably finished shortly before then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
